Official FFA 2014 Midterms- GOP wins Senate, victories everywhere (1 Viewer)

[George Jefferson Airplane]

So if the Republicans take the Senate this current government is still in gridlock correct?

 

[Gawain]

Hillary's not even an odds on favorite at the spots that take action on this kind of thing. If you are that strong on her winning, there's no real reason not to try to make some coin on it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So if the Republicans take the Senate this current government is still in gridlock correct?

It would be nice if our Congress would be a little more parliamentary so that it would form coalitions and pass legislation that could override any veto. That would require Demos joining with Goppers or vice versa.

 

[Fennis]

So if the Republicans take the Senate this current government is still in gridlock correct?

the good news is that all Obama will be able to focus on is foreign policy, so if we play our cards right, maybe we can have a couple more wars.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I hope..I want our government to get back to giving handouts to corporate America instead of all the poor deadbeats.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

So if the Republicans take the Senate this current government is still in gridlock correct?

It would be nice if our Congress would be a little more parliamentary so that it would form coalitions and pass legislation that could override any veto. That would require Demos joining with Goppers or vice versa.

Works on Survivor

 

[Slapdash]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

 

[humpback]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

Can't wait for the sides to switch up arguments.

 

[Koya]

Can't see how they won't take over.

IMO, the bigger story is 2016 and how this election will effect things. If the Republicans overplay their hand with the Senate in pocket, does that help get a more Lib dem elected? Does it bolster Hillary for some who would not otherwise vote for her?

Personally, Id gladly give the republicans the Senate if it meant that we have a Dem in the next presidential election for no other reason than 80% of my vote for Pres is based upon Supreme Court appointments. That, imo, will have the greatest positive or negative influence for our nation's well being and the freedoms we claim to hold so dear.

 

[Koya]

538 put their final odds at 76% for the Rs to take the Senate.

Fennis final odds are 100%

While it is now 100% certain that Republicans will get enough votes in enough races to guarantee taking control of the Senate, we are not out of the woods of the range of Democratic voter fraud. They can certainly doctor the counts in enough races to keep the GOP at bay.

If you are serious, stop it. Seriously. It's been beaten to death and comments like the above just come off sounding utterly tone deaf to years of (objective) reality.

 

[Slapdash]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

Can't wait for the sides to switch up arguments.

Glad you find my sarcasm amusing.

I'm sure you'll still be standing around contributing nothing regardless.

 

[Rich Conway]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

Can't wait for the sides to switch up arguments.

Glad you find my sarcasm amusing.

I'm sure you'll still be standing around contributing nothing regardless.

Isn't that exactly what will happen? The GOP will suddenly claim that the Democrats are the "party of No" (or some similar, even less clever moniker) for constantly filibustering, while the Democrats will suddenly complain that none of their ideas are being heard, they're only filibustering because they can't get their amendments to the floor, etc.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

Can't wait for the sides to switch up arguments.

Glad you find my sarcasm amusing.

I'm sure you'll still be standing around contributing nothing regardless.

Isn't that exactly what will happen? The GOP will suddenly claim that the Democrats are the "party of No" (or some similar, even less clever moniker) for constantly filibustering, while the Democrats will suddenly complain that none of their ideas are being heard, they're only filibustering because they can't get their amendments to the floor, etc.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[Slapdash]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

Can't wait for the sides to switch up arguments.

Glad you find my sarcasm amusing.

I'm sure you'll still be standing around contributing nothing regardless.

Isn't that exactly what will happen? The GOP will suddenly claim that the Democrats are the "party of No" (or some similar, even less clever moniker) for constantly filibustering, while the Democrats will suddenly complain that none of their ideas are being heard, they're only filibustering because they can't get their amendments to the floor, etc.

I'm sure it will, if the Democrats actually engage in similar constant filibustering this time around. All pretty irrelevant given the veto pen anyways.

 

[humpback]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

Can't wait for the sides to switch up arguments.

Glad you find my sarcasm amusing.

I'm sure you'll still be standing around contributing nothing regardless.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Slapdash]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

Can't wait for the sides to switch up arguments.

Glad you find my sarcasm amusing.

I'm sure you'll still be standing around contributing nothing regardless.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[pantagrapher]

Can't see how they won't take over.

IMO, the bigger story is 2016 and how this election will effect things. If the Republicans overplay their hand with the Senate in pocket, does that help get a more Lib dem elected? Does it bolster Hillary for some who would not otherwise vote for her?

Personally, Id gladly give the republicans the Senate if it meant that we have a Dem in the next presidential election for no other reason than 80% of my vote for Pres is based upon Supreme Court appointments. That, imo, will have the greatest positive or negative influence for our nation's well being and the freedoms we claim to hold so dear.

It's been kind of interesting to me how resigned and largely unworried about the Senate flip most democrats are. It's obviously a nuisance, but one I think most of us are willing to weather for a larger victory down the road. And if we lose a justice in the next two years, the GOP will be in a very tough bind: confirm a moderate Obama nominee or run down the clock and put an epic defeat in play?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Can't see how they won't take over.

IMO, the bigger story is 2016 and how this election will effect things. If the Republicans overplay their hand with the Senate in pocket, does that help get a more Lib dem elected? Does it bolster Hillary for some who would not otherwise vote for her?

Personally, Id gladly give the republicans the Senate if it meant that we have a Dem in the next presidential election for no other reason than 80% of my vote for Pres is based upon Supreme Court appointments. That, imo, will have the greatest positive or negative influence for our nation's well being and the freedoms we claim to hold so dear.

It's been kind of interesting to me how resigned and largely unworried about the Senate flip most democrats are. It's obviously a nuisance, but one I think most of us are willing to weather for a larger victory down the road. And if we lose a justice in the next two years, the GOP will be in a very tough bind: confirm a moderate Obama nominee or run down the clock and put an epic defeat in play?

It's virtually irrelevant. They won't get anywhere near 60 votes with anything the Dems can't stomach, Obama is there to veto if they do, and even a quick glance at the map of seats up for eleciton in 2016 tells you that it's clearly gonna flip right back in two years.

 

[humpback]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

Can't wait for the sides to switch up arguments.

Glad you find my sarcasm amusing.

I'm sure you'll still be standing around contributing nothing regardless.

WTF are you talking about?

When I say it, you make a lame post about it. When two other posters say it, you backtrack and basically agree with them.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my post?

 

[HellToupee]

538 put their final odds at 76% for the Rs to take the Senate.

Fennis final odds are 100%

While it is now 100% certain that Republicans will get enough votes in enough races to guarantee taking control of the Senate, we are not out of the woods of the range of Democratic voter fraud. They can certainly doctor the counts in enough races to keep the GOP at bay.

If you are serious, stop it. Seriously. It's been beaten to death and comments like the above just come off sounding utterly tone deaf to years of (objective) reality.

In close races (<2% margin between winner and loser), Democrats win 75% of the time. Normal chance would suggest that should be 50-50. In larger spreads, where the winner wins by more than 2%, it is more likely even, 50-50 between the parties. The disparity suggests that Democrats are able to commit enough fraud in close races to tip the scales in their favor.

It's been long known that in order to win an election, Republicans must do so by enough of a spread to beat the "margin of fraud".

Funny how that happens

 

[timschochet]

Walking Boot, do you have a link for your statement that Democrats win 75% of all close elections?

 

[TPW]

Can't see how they won't take over.

IMO, the bigger story is 2016 and how this election will effect things. If the Republicans overplay their hand with the Senate in pocket, does that help get a more Lib dem elected? Does it bolster Hillary for some who would not otherwise vote for her?

Personally, Id gladly give the republicans the Senate if it meant that we have a Dem in the next presidential election for no other reason than 80% of my vote for Pres is based upon Supreme Court appointments. That, imo, will have the greatest positive or negative influence for our nation's well being and the freedoms we claim to hold so dear.

It's been kind of interesting to me how resigned and largely unworried about the Senate flip most democrats are. It's obviously a nuisance, but one I think most of us are willing to weather for a larger victory down the road. And if we lose a justice in the next two years, the GOP will be in a very tough bind: confirm a moderate Obama nominee or run down the clock and put an epic defeat in play?

Because their guy still controls the White House and is going to use sweeping executive authority in a manner not seen since FDR if necessary. If anything, a completely Republican Congress gives him an even greater excuse of "gridlock" to enact whatever he wants with the stroke of a pen. It's not very Constitutional but then again the Constitutional guidelines have never been given more than occasional lip service by Obama and progressives when it suits their purposes.

About the only thing which will change is that the Democrats will no longer be able to push through judicial nominees in the Senate with a simple majority vote as they have since implementing the "nuclear option" last year. Look for a flurry of activity between now and January 2015.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's been kind of interesting to me how resigned and largely unworried about the Senate flip most democrats are.

Obama's got veto power, and I think Obama will roll them in terms of persuadable public perception -- sort of like the government shutdown. The Republicans won't be able to convince the base to be patient anymore and Cruz et al are going to make a lot of noise.

But mostly it's because in 2016 turnout will be high (Presidential election), states with Senate elections will be much bluer than this year (possibly 10 points more Democratic), and Republicans will be defending 24 of the 34 seats up for grabs.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Walking Boot, do you have a link for your statement that Democrats win 75% of all close elections?

 

[urbanhack]

Can't see how they won't take over.

IMO, the bigger story is 2016 and how this election will effect things. If the Republicans overplay their hand with the Senate in pocket, does that help get a more Lib dem elected? Does it bolster Hillary for some who would not otherwise vote for her?

Personally, Id gladly give the republicans the Senate if it meant that we have a Dem in the next presidential election for no other reason than 80% of my vote for Pres is based upon Supreme Court appointments. That, imo, will have the greatest positive or negative influence for our nation's well being and the freedoms we claim to hold so dear.

It's been kind of interesting to me how resigned and largely unworried about the Senate flip most democrats are. It's obviously a nuisance, but one I think most of us are willing to weather for a larger victory down the road. And if we lose a justice in the next two years, the GOP will be in a very tough bind: confirm a moderate Obama nominee or run down the clock and put an epic defeat in play?

Because their guy still controls the White House and is going to use sweeping executive authority in a manner not seen since FDR if necessary. If anything, a completely Republican Congress gives him an even greater excuse of "gridlock" to enact whatever he wants with the stroke of a pen. It's not very Constitutional but then again the Constitutional guidelines have never been given more than occasional lip service by Obama and progressives when it suits their purposes.

About the only thing which will change is that the Democrats will no longer be able to push through judicial nominees in the Senate with a simple majority vote as they have since implementing the "nuclear option" last year. Look for a flurry of activity between now and January 2015.

 

[Rich Conway]

It's been kind of interesting to me how resigned and largely unworried about the Senate flip most democrats are.

Obama's got veto power, and I think Obama will roll them in terms of persuadable public perception -- sort of like the government shutdown. The Republicans won't be able to convince the base to be patient anymore and Cruz et al are going to make a lot of noise.

But mostly it's because in 2016 turnout will be high (Presidential election), states with Senate elections will be much bluer than this year (possibly 10 points more Democratic), and Republicans will be defending 24 of the 34 seats up for grabs.

Right quote, right analysis, wrong quoted name.

 

[TPW]

Can't see how they won't take over.

IMO, the bigger story is 2016 and how this election will effect things. If the Republicans overplay their hand with the Senate in pocket, does that help get a more Lib dem elected? Does it bolster Hillary for some who would not otherwise vote for her?

Personally, Id gladly give the republicans the Senate if it meant that we have a Dem in the next presidential election for no other reason than 80% of my vote for Pres is based upon Supreme Court appointments. That, imo, will have the greatest positive or negative influence for our nation's well being and the freedoms we claim to hold so dear.

It's been kind of interesting to me how resigned and largely unworried about the Senate flip most democrats are. It's obviously a nuisance, but one I think most of us are willing to weather for a larger victory down the road. And if we lose a justice in the next two years, the GOP will be in a very tough bind: confirm a moderate Obama nominee or run down the clock and put an epic defeat in play?

Because their guy still controls the White House and is going to use sweeping executive authority in a manner not seen since FDR if necessary. If anything, a completely Republican Congress gives him an even greater excuse of "gridlock" to enact whatever he wants with the stroke of a pen. It's not very Constitutional but then again the Constitutional guidelines have never been given more than occasional lip service by Obama and progressives when it suits their purposes.

About the only thing which will change is that the Democrats will no longer be able to push through judicial nominees in the Senate with a simple majority vote as they have since implementing the "nuclear option" last year. Look for a flurry of activity between now and January 2015.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. This kind of witty repartee is on the same order of some of your other recent posts such as...

Today, 10:52 AM

As well as...

Today, 12:18 PM

$uper Duper Hot

And the unforgettable...

Today, 12:05 PM


So glad to get your perspective.

The Free for All community thanks you, urbanhack, for your continuing cerebral beneficence.

 

[TobiasFunke]

To be fair:

1. Your post was pretty hilariously silly, and

2. That chick is super duper hot

 

[TPW]

To be fair:

1. Your post was pretty hilariously silly, and

2. That chick is super duper hot

What about the increased use of executive authority in the face of a hostile legislative branch is any way unreasonable? You guys have become completely reactionary.

 

[Sweet J]

To be fair:

1. Your post was pretty hilariously silly, and

2. That chick is super duper hot

What about the increased use of executive authority in the face of a hostile legislative branch is any way unreasonable? You guys have become completely reactionary.

Your statement about pushing through nominees after the so-called "nuclear option" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how things have actually worked the last year. But don't let that stop you from making wild assertions.

 

[TobiasFunke]

To be fair:

1. Your post was pretty hilariously silly, and

2. That chick is super duper hot

What about the increased use of executive authority in the face of a hostile legislative branch is any way unreasonable? You guys have become completely reactionary.

Your phrasing of it. "[T]he Constitutional guidelines have never been given more than occasional lip service by Obama and progressives when it suits their purposes" Hyperpartisan melodramatics like that deserve all the s.

And like I said, that chick was amazing. Did you look at those pictures? Jesus Christ.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Supposedly white suburban precincts are having half hour waits, sometimes more, around New Orleans.

 

[HellToupee]

Supposedly white suburban precincts are having half hour waits, sometimes more, around New Orleans.

during work hours?

 

[dutch]

Supposedly white suburban precincts are having half hour waits, sometimes more, around New Orleans.

This amazes me as I've never had to wait this long to vote and I've voted in both urban and suburban areas, sometimes both in the same election.

 

[TPW]

To be fair:

1. Your post was pretty hilariously silly, and

2. That chick is super duper hot

What about the increased use of executive authority in the face of a hostile legislative branch is any way unreasonable? You guys have become completely reactionary.

Your statement about pushing through nominees after the so-called "nuclear option" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how things have actually worked the last year. But don't let that stop you from making wild assertions.

Huh? The Democrats did away with the 60-vote threshold needed to bring judicial nominees up for a floor vote in order to circumvent Republican filibusters. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[CBusAlex]

Republicans have long demonstrated that gaining power by any means necessary is their sole concern by their continued efforts to prevent as many "undesirable" voters as possible from casting their ballots. It looks like this will pay off for them this cycle, but if they fail to capture the senate expect them to just cast aside all pretense of support for democratic government and just take control in a violent coup.

 

[Rich Conway]

Supposedly white suburban precincts are having half hour waits, sometimes more, around New Orleans.

No, I've been told repeatedly that only minority districts ever have wait times for voting. Someone is lying to you.

 

[TPW]

To be fair:

1. Your post was pretty hilariously silly, and

2. That chick is super duper hot

What about the increased use of executive authority in the face of a hostile legislative branch is any way unreasonable? You guys have become completely reactionary.

Your statement about pushing through nominees after the so-called "nuclear option" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how things have actually worked the last year. But don't let that stop you from making wild assertions.

Huh? The Democrats did away with the 60-vote threshold needed to bring judicial nominees up for a floor vote in order to circumvent Republican filibusters. What's so hard to understand about that?

Right. And you don't think that there have been other procedural slowdowns in Congress's arsenal than that? Please. Do you own homework, Chachi. Or don't, and continue with your (and misguided) assertions that the Executive is freely pushing through nominations at will. (hint: it isn't)

It is you who needs to brush up on your reading comprehension there, chavo. I said that about the only thing will change in the Senate is that the Democrats will no longer be able to use their recent rule change for their advantage. I never mentioned the executive branch with respect to judicial nominees, though I'm quite sure the president is quite happy to stack the courts with as many progressive operatives as possible. I was specifically thinking about the White House's plan for de facto amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants with respect to executive action.

 

[Sweet J]

Can't see how they won't take over.

IMO, the bigger story is 2016 and how this election will effect things. If the Republicans overplay their hand with the Senate in pocket, does that help get a more Lib dem elected? Does it bolster Hillary for some who would not otherwise vote for her?

Personally, Id gladly give the republicans the Senate if it meant that we have a Dem in the next presidential election for no other reason than 80% of my vote for Pres is based upon Supreme Court appointments. That, imo, will have the greatest positive or negative influence for our nation's well being and the freedoms we claim to hold so dear.

It's been kind of interesting to me how resigned and largely unworried about the Senate flip most democrats are. It's obviously a nuisance, but one I think most of us are willing to weather for a larger victory down the road. And if we lose a justice in the next two years, the GOP will be in a very tough bind: confirm a moderate Obama nominee or run down the clock and put an epic defeat in play?

Because their guy still controls the White House and is going to use sweeping executive authority in a manner not seen since FDR if necessary. If anything, a completely Republican Congress gives him an even greater excuse of "gridlock" to enact whatever he wants with the stroke of a pen. It's not very Constitutional but then again the Constitutional guidelines have never been given more than occasional lip service by Obama and progressives when it suits their purposes.

About the only thing which will change is that the Democrats will no longer be able to push through judicial nominees in the Senate with a simple majority vote as they have since implementing the "nuclear option" last year. Look for a flurry of activity between now and January 2015.

This is the statement that I thought was a bit uninformed. If you were suggesting that it is easy-peasy for the Dems to push through judicial nominees in the Senate, notwithstanding the elimination of the fillibuster rules, I respectfully disagree. But there is no need for a lot of back and forth. There is enough wiggle room in your statement for equivocation.

 

[urbanhack]

Supposedly white suburban precincts are having half hour waits, sometimes more, around New Orleans.

No, I've been told repeatedly that only minority districts ever have wait times for voting. Someone is lying to you.

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/4/7154937/midterm-election-voting-black-latino

 

[HellToupee]

Republicans have long demonstrated that gaining power by any means necessary is their sole concern by their continued efforts to prevent as many "undesirable" voters as possible from casting their ballots. It looks like this will pay off for them this cycle, but if they fail to capture the senate expect them to just cast aside all pretense of support for democratic government and just take control in a violent coup.

the force is strong with this one

 

[Slapdash]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

Can't wait for the sides to switch up arguments.

Glad you find my sarcasm amusing.

I'm sure you'll still be standing around contributing nothing regardless.

WTF are you talking about?

When I say it, you make a lame post about it. When two other posters say it, you backtrack and basically agree with them.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my post?

Nope

 

[BassNBrew]

Supposedly white suburban precincts are having half hour waits, sometimes more, around New Orleans.

1.5 hours here during work hours.

 

[jonessed]

So if the Republicans take the Senate this current government is still in gridlock correct?

Not necessarily. Obama will have to get his hands dirty with vetoes which may force him to work with Congress. A Republican Senate will be more moderate than the Republican House and may be able to get more moderate bills out of them.

There's at least a chance here with some change. If Democrats retain the Senate it will be status quo.

 

[timschochet]

Walking Boot, do you have a link for your statement that Democrats win 75% of all close elections?

http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/do-democrats-always-win-close-statewide-elections/

Misspoke, they defined "close" as within 1%.

To get a sense of the answer, I took a look at all the statewide Senate and governors races from 1998 through 2013 (thanks to Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics for a big assist with the data) as well as all the statewide results in the presidential elections during that period. Lets begin with the very closest races, those decided by less than one percentage point. There have been 27 such races since 1998, and Democrats have won 20 out of 27:

Thats a truly impressive showing, and proof of how very unusual George W. Bushs victory in Florida in 2000 was. For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races

so your sample size is 20 out of 27 races, and from that you conclude that the Democrats are cheating??If you flipped a coin 27 times and it happened to come up heads 20 times, would you automatically assume the coin was weighted?

 

[timschochet]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

 

[Slapdash]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

They're obviously not doing a good job promoting them because I have seen nothing on this in NC.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So if the Republicans take the Senate this current government is still in gridlock correct?

Not necessarily. Obama will have to get his hands dirty with vetoes which may force him to work with Congress. A Republican Senate will be more moderate than the Republican House and may be able to get more moderate bills out of them.

There's at least a chance here with some change. If Democrats retain the Senate it will be status quo.

Or what?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

Isn't the Libertarian vote generally the pot vote anyway?

 

[timschochet]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

They're obviously not doing a good job promoting them because I have seen nothing on this in NC.

according to what I heard on the radio you're being flooded with commercials?